The Effect of External Auditors on Managerial Slack

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-115
Author(s):  
Junxiong Fang ◽  
Lerong He ◽  
Tara Shankar Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Firm Resources ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Regulated Industries ◽  
Chinese Public

SYNOPSIS We investigate the role of external auditors in constraining managerial slack. Using panel data on Chinese public firms, we find that firms hiring Big 8 auditors are associated with reduced managerial slack after controlling for the endogenous auditor choice. We also document that Big 8 auditors are more effective in mitigating slack in privately controlled firms and firms located in more developed regions. Moreover, we show that international Big 4 auditors are more effective than the domestic Big 4, and the Big 8 effect is more salient in more competitive and less regulated industries, and in industries with higher litigation risks. Finally, we document a positive relationship between managerial slack and audit fees, particularly in the presence of Big 8 auditors. Overall, our results suggest that high-quality external auditors play an important corporate governance role by serving as both bonding and controlling mechanisms to mitigate managerial exploitation of firm resources. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the article.

Did the 2005 Deferred Prosecution Agreement Adversely Impact KPMG's Audit Practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Baugh ◽  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Service Provider ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Tax Shelters

SUMMARY We examine the consequences of misconduct in a Big 4 firm's nonaudit practice for its audit practice. Specifically, we examine whether KPMG's audit practice suffered a loss of audit fees and clients and/or a decline in factual audit quality following the 2005 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Department of Justice for marketing questionable tax shelters. We find little evidence that the DPA adversely impacted KPMG's audit practice by way of either audit fees or the likelihood of client gains/losses, suggesting little or no harm to KPMG's audit reputation. We also find that the DPA had no effect on the firm's factual audit quality, even for those audit clients that dropped KPMG as their tax service provider. Collectively, our findings suggest that there was no spillover effect from the DPA to KPMG's audit practice. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

The Market for Audit Services: The Role of Market Power

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Tracy Ti Gu ◽  
Dan A. Simunic ◽  
Michael T. Stein ◽  
Minlei Ye ◽  
Ping Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Local Market ◽  
Capital Investments ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Subject

ABSTRACT The market for audit services has been the subject of extensive academic research since the 1970s. The prevailing view is that audit markets are characterized by tiers of suppliers (Big 4 versus non-Big 4, and industry specialists versus non-specialists) where the upper tier suppliers produce and sell a systematically higher level of assurance, while competition among suppliers within tiers is essentially perfect and a uniform price prevails within the submarkets. We discuss three papers that challenge this orthodoxy. These papers argue and find that the price of an audit is essentially unique to each (auditor, client) pair and that this price depends on both audit firm size and client size. Furthermore, audit firm size is linked with the firm's capital investments, which enhance auditor efficiency and market power. We conclude that audit markets are atomistic and that local market power is an important determinant of audit prices and audit fees.

Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality?

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rates ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archival Studies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT We examine whether the December 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte affected Deloitte's switching risk, audit fees, and audit quality relative to the other Big 4 firms over a three-year period following the censure. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB censure was associated with a decrease in Deloitte's ability to retain clients and attract new clients, and a decrease in Deloitte's audit fee growth rates. However, methodologies used in extant archival studies yield little or no evidence to suggest that Deloitte's audit quality was different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year window either before or after the censure. Overall, our results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

Determinants and Market Consequences of Auditor Dismissals after Accounting Restatements

2013 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 1051-1082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M. Hennes ◽  
Andrew J. Leone ◽  
Brian P. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Executive Turnover ◽  
Corporate Boards ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Financial Restatements ◽  
Market Consequences

ABSTRACT This study examines the conditions under which financial restatements lead corporate boards to dismiss external auditors and how the market responds to those dismissal announcements. We find that auditors are more likely to be dismissed after more severe restatements but that the severity effect is primarily attributable to the dismissal of non-Big 4 auditors rather than Big 4 auditors. We also document that among corporations with Big 4 auditors, those that are larger and more complex operationally are less likely to dismiss their auditors. Combined, this evidence suggests that firms with higher switching costs and fewer replacement auditor choices are less likely to dismiss their auditors after a restatement, which is informative to the debates about the costs and benefits of mandatory auditor rotation and limited competition in the audit market. Additionally, we examine contemporaneous executive turnover and find evidence that boards view auditor dismissals as complementary rather than substitute responses to restatements. Finally, we investigate the market reaction to auditor dismissals after restatements. The market reaction to the dismissal is significantly more positive following more severe restatements (5.9 percent) relative to less severe restatements (0.6 percent) when the client engages a comparably sized auditor. This positive market reaction is consistent with firms restoring financial reporting credibility by replacing their auditors and highlights the important role that auditors play in the financial markets. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources indicated in the text.

Customer-Base Concentration: Implications for Audit Pricing and Quality

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopal V. Krishnan ◽  
Panos N. Patatoukas ◽  
Annika Yu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Customer Relationships ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Customer Base ◽  
Conventional View ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT What are the implications of major customer dependency, i.e., the degree of a supplier firm's dependency on its major customers, for external auditors? While the conventional view emphasizes the negatives of major customer dependency for client business risk, we find that suppliers with more concentrated customer bases spend less on audit fees. The evidence is consistent with reduced audit effort due to efficiency gains in the audit process, especially when suppliers with more concentrated customer bases share the same auditors with their long-standing major customers. The audit fee discount we identify does not imply that audit quality declines with customer-base concentration. In fact, we find that suppliers with more concentrated customer bases are less likely to experience material restatements of previously audited financial statements. Taking the external auditors' perspective, our study provides new managerial insights on the costs and benefits of major customer relationships for supplier firms. Data Availability: All data are available from sources identified in the text.

Auditor Choice and the Informativeness of 10-K Reports

2021 ◽  
pp. 0148558X2110624
Author(s):  
Karel Hrazdil ◽  
Dan A. Simunic ◽  
Nattavut Suwanyangyuan
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Client Characteristics ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Accrual Quality ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Joint Product ◽  
Big 4

This study provides new evidence on the influential role of external auditors in enhancing the informativeness of form 10-K annual reports to shareholders. Specifically, we find that the client’s choice of a Big 4 auditor (PwC, EY, KPMG, and Deloitte) versus a non-Big 4 auditor contributes to cross-sectional variations in 10-K disclosure volume. We also document that the benefit of enhanced disclosures provided by Big 4 auditors is more pronounced for audit clients with poorer accrual quality and those with higher information asymmetry. Furthermore, we introduce the portion of 10-K length unexplained by operating complexity and observable client characteristics as a new proxy for audit firm effort. Specifically, we find that abnormally long disclosures are associated with higher audit fees and longer audit report lag, which implies that an incremental level of audit effort can be inferred from the discretionary component of 10-K disclosures. As audit effort is costly, a greater volume of 10-K disclosures can be expected to be associated with an improvement in the quality of financial reporting. Overall, our findings show that auditors play more than a simple attestation role in the financial reporting process, and that the quality of financial reporting in a company’s 10-K annual report is a joint product of the effort and decisions of both a company’s managers and its auditors.

Costs of Mandatory Periodic Audit Partner Rotation: Evidence from Audit Fees and Audit Timeliness

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divesh S. Sharma ◽  
Paul N. Tanyi ◽  
Barri A. Litt
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Audit Production ◽  
Audit Partner Rotation

SUMMARY The constricted mandatory audit partner rotation rules for U.S. public companies have fueled intense debate among the profession, regulators, and policymakers. This topic remains controversial, but neither side has provided evidence of the consequential benefits and costs of mandatory rotation. While rotation effects on audit quality have been examined, we empirically examine its effects on two audit production costs: audit fees and audit timeliness. We find significantly higher audit fees and significantly longer audit report lags in the period immediately following mandatory audit partner rotation. These effects are more pronounced for non-Big 4 auditors, larger clients, and audit offices that are not industry specialists. Moreover, the audit fee and audit timeliness effects persist in successive audit partner rotations, suggesting that client-specific knowledge gained through longer audit firm engagement does not completely mitigate loss of client-specific knowledge at the partner level. Our findings provide new empirical evidence supporting the profession's arguments that mandatory audit partner rotation is costly to multiple stakeholders, including clients, auditors, and investors. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.

The Effect of Governance on Specialist Auditor Choice and Audit Fees in U.S. Family Firms

2014 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 2297-2329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin N. Srinidhi ◽  
Shaohua He ◽  
Michael Firth
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Family Firms ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Agency Problem ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Board Governance ◽  
Auditor Choice

ABSTRACT Family firms are characterized by less separation between ownership and control (Type 1 agency problem), but greater conflict of interest between controlling insiders and non-controlling outside investors (Type 2 agency problem). Although strong board governance is known to decrease the Type 1 agency problem, its effectiveness in mitigating the adverse consequences of the Type 2 agency problem has not been well documented in the literature. We show that strongly governed family firms are more likely to choose specialist auditors and exhibit higher earnings quality than nonfamily firms. Weakly governed family firms demand lower audit effort and exhibit earnings quality that is no different from that of nonfamily firms. Within family firms, we show that strongly governed family firms choose higher quality audits in the form of a greater use of specialist auditors and higher audit efforts, and exhibit higher earnings quality than other family firms. These findings provide consistent evidence that strong board governance can effectively mitigate the adverse consequences of the Type 2 agency problem on financial reporting and transparency in family firms. Data Availability: The data used are available from the public sources identified in the study.

Ownership concentration, family control, and auditor choice

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salim Darmadi
Keyword(s):  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Emerging Market ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Ownership Concentration ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Family Control ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Big 4

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend the existing, yet limited, literature on the influence of ownership concentration and family control on the demands for high-quality audits. This study focusses on an emerging market, namely, Indonesia, where ownership concentration and family control are relatively higher than those in developed markets. Design/methodology/approach – The sample consists of 787 firm-year observations of public firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Following prior studies, a firm is considered using a higher quality audit when its external auditor is one of the Big 4 audit firms. Logistic regressions are employed to test research hypotheses. Findings – Empirical evidence obtained reveals that firms with higher ownership concentration are more likely to hire a Big 4 auditor. Hence, in such firms, high-quality audits are employed to mitigate agency issues. However, when the controlling shareholder is a family, the association between ownership concentration and the demands for high-quality auditors turns negative, implying that family-controlled firms tend to sustain opaqueness gains by hiring lower quality auditors. Originality/value – Previous empirical studies examining the influence of ownership concentration and family control on auditor choice are relatively limited in the literature and are heavily focussed on developed economies. In addition, the present study is one of the first to investigate the association between family control and auditor choice in the context of a developing economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document